Gabrilowitz v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 100 · 1978
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross (1983), Commonwealth v. Chacko (1983)
20 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mathews v. Eldridge · Younger v. Harris · Wolff v. McDonnell · Goldberg v. Kelly
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although the possibility of expulsion may make participation a wise choice, the hearing procedures do not place appellee ‘between the rock and the whirlpool.’ Garrity v. New Jersey, [ 385 U.S. 493, 498 (1967)]. He can, if he wishes, stay out of the stream and watch the proceedings from dry land. But, if he does so, he forfeits any opportunity to control the direction of the current. Appellee must decide whether or not to testify at the hearing with the knowledge that, if he does, his statements may be used against him in the criminal case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Academic institutions have a significant interest in the promulgation of procedures for the resolution of student disciplinary problems.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.